1998 (2) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's appeal against the Collector (Appeals) order disallowing certain deductions.
2. Appellant's appeal against the Assistant Collector's order confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) for three price lists.
3. Appellant's appeal against the Assistant Collector's order confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) for three more price lists.
4. Challenge to the observation made by the Assistant Collector regarding the calculation of duty based on audited figures.

Analysis:

1. The common appellant, engaged in manufacturing torches, dry cells, and miniature bulbs, filed seven price lists claiming various deductions. The High Court directed the disposal of appeals without reference to delay. The Collector (Appeals) allowed deductions for outward freight, octroi, transit insurance, and handling charges but disallowed deductions for notional interest, interest on stocks, packing costs, and distribution expenses. The appellant filed one appeal instead of seven separate appeals. The appellant requested treating the appeal as against the order-in-appeal for price list No. 48/80.

2. The Assistant Collector passed an order for three more price lists following the Collector (Appeals) pattern. The appellant filed one appeal instead of three separate appeals. The appellant requested treating the appeal as against the order passed in Appeal No. 107/90.

3. The Assistant Collector passed an order on three more price lists, confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Appeal No. E/2662/91-A was filed, followed by two supplementary appeals.

4. The appellant challenged the observation by the Assistant Collector regarding the calculation of duty based on audited figures. The appellant argued that actual figures should be considered for deductions, whether less or more than provisional figures. The Tribunal accepted a similar submission in a previous order. The judgment directed that actual figures should be considered for deductions during assessment, regardless of being less or more than provisional figures.

5. The appeals were disposed of with the direction to consider actual figures for deduction quantums during assessment, irrespective of being less or more than provisional figures.

6. The appeals were allowed to the extent of considering actual figures for deductions, and cross-objections were disposed of as supportive.